This page is an archive. The contents have been moved from another page for reference purposes only, and should be preserved in their current form. Discussion or voting on this page is not current. Any additions you make will probably not be read. The current version of this page can be found at Uncyclopedia:Pages for deletion.

Delete: Nothing is stupider than a bunch of horny British expats who think they're funny. An article on Asian Chicks could be so much funnier than a list of fucking hackneyed stereotypes and Pataya jokes. --Dr. Destructo

I'd reverted an anon-IP blanking this one, but in retrospect it's likely slandanity/rubbish and should be taken out and shot. --Carlb 21:35, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I believe it should be kept. It does look stupid, but it could go somewhere, I think.

Deleted. Article was pretty much crap that belonged on someone's LiveJournal, and it seems to be a crap magnet to boot. It got stuck to my feet all last week, and I'm not in the mood to keep scraping it off. But I could be wrong, in which case, some other admin can restore it (and possibly ban me from playing Admin until Tuesday when I've settled down). -- SirBobBobBob!S? [rox!|sux!] 16:56, 14 Nov 2005 (UTC)

The articles are too short on their own. I'll be combining them with the Making up numbers page. All the content I'll need has already been moved, so go ahead and delete these suckers. --neoEva88 23:09, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Keep I wrote a different article on eleventy before you did, and I want to see it kept. --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 01:50, 12 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Deleted I deleted these once for being unfunny stubs. neoEva88 whined, so I restored them until they were added to the main Making up numbers article he was working on, so that we had 1 big article, rather than 6-8 short stubby ones. A similar fate will be in store for the rest of the other number articles that I restored. Once they are merged into the main article, they can be whacked. And btw, the main article is starting to look pretty good. Kudos on taking small piles of crap and making them into a nice bit of artwork. SirFamine,Gun♣Petition» 16:54, 12 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Comment One thing to watch when doing merge-and-delete is that you lose the article history and info on who wrote the darned thing. Merge and redirect is therefore often preferable if there's anything in the history worth keeping. --Carlb 04:18, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)

This page is only advertising some russian forum and not funny at all. And above all, it's telling the truth! Delete it since I don't think someone will be willing to rewrite it. I, personally, has no desire to be funny about some unknown club. --Norro 03:16, 11 Nov 2005

Deleted The fact that I can tell it sucks even with my very limited Russian comprehension means it must have been vary bad indeed.

The same as previours - Delete this piece of crap. There is no fun to read someone's praises to himself. Well, it whould be fun if there was a good humor about it, but there is not. It's just annoying. --Norro 03:16, 11 Nov 2005

Delete It looks pretty bad, but my Russian isn't so good so I won't delete it outright. --Spintherism 18:43, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Comment; Explain to me why, have you checked the context that the picture is used in? are you simply calling it a racist image (as per your comment in VFP) because I used an image of a black man/ or the word 'brown'? please, indulge me. The article the image is used in is Worst 100 Porn Movies of All Time, and the name 'Bedknobs and Brown dicks' is a phonetic play on the film 'Bedknobs and Broomsticks'. There was, and remains, absolutely no racist intent in this image, is this simply an attack of the ultra PC brigade, what's the issue? --Caiman 04:17, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Comment This happened in the Uncyclopedia IRC channel, so it is kinda an inside joke. Wikicities has a page for IRC quotes [2], which applies to #uncyclopedia quotes as well, but we have more funny quotes happen in #uncyclopedia so maybe we should have another page at uncyclopedia. --Paulgb 22:36, 6 Nov 2005 (UTC)

It's overused to the point that it's no longer funny. Nobody seems to like it, and blanking the template makes no sense, as it is mostly a waste of diskspace. If someone wants to make a quote similar, they can hard code it and the Category:Steve Ballmer's Hitlist in the article itself. --sColdWhat 21:11, 5 Nov 2005 (UTC)

You're about a month too late on this. The template was VFD'd and blanked, until we had killed all the references to it on various pages, to avoid just making red-links which would encourage it to be recreated. Instead of simply un-blanking it, why don't you read the comments in it, and check the VFD history, eh? SirFamine,Gun♣Petition» 22:59, 5 Nov 2005 (UTC)

And it's not even spelled correctly. Change to a redirect --Nintendorulez 20:36, 5 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Deleted, a crappy article with the titel speled worng has no chance. The only link to it is this page. This is QVFD material. Not redirected because nothing links to it and it is not a common enough misspelling. --Paulgb 22:31, 6 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, a pain. I periodically clean out Special:Doubleredirects, ugh! I vote keep Recycle, change The song that never ends to non-redirect links (a link chain, as redirects it isn't as funny, it skips every other one), and delete the other. --Splaka 02:03, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Keep -- if you could. I probably shoulda stubbed this. Just wondering how to make a contribution. If it's that poorly written to you guys though after i get the next part in, please delete it. Don't wanna let a limp article live to be pointless and add nothing I suppose.

There are en awful lot og jesii pages already, and I don't see where this is going. A better way to contributeto the Jesii would be to rewrite/expand one of the minor Jesii that already exist, like dark or purple jesus or Jeez.--Sarducci 18:33, 5 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Good idea -- alright. nuke it. ill try to put some more meat on the other minor jesii. yeah. delete

I gotta say, you certainly have your hands full, but you're doing a great job. I hope I have as much success with the Month Project. --neoEva88 01:40, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I found a new one: Jesus hendrix. Is it worth fixing the capitalization? It does have a halfway decent pix. I haven't been following the Multiple Jesii project, though Jesus is just alright with me, Jesus is just alright, da da da da da (air guitar solo). -- SirBobBobBob!S? [rox!|sux!] 20:26, 2 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Adding to our existing quote-flood, BorgQuote isn't funny. I vote for deletion and for another ban on Nerd42 for making it and spreading it. Although I bet he'll come by and oppose my vote on that one. ;) SirFamine,Gun♣Petition» 02:42, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Delete, we have enough (1 is too many) canned quotes templates. Who wants a template that just inserts the same quote over and over? PS: I added the template-for-deletion template to it, to give the users a fair chance to vote. --Splaka 03:24, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC)

OK. I will stop using it if you like. However, nobody's told me not to, so I haven't disobeyed any admin's order so I don't see a reason for banning me. Did your goldfish just die? --Nerd42 04:15, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Keep on second thought, I'd better turn that into a vote 2 keep it ... but perhaps the quote could be edited to become funnier? --Nerd42 22:15, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Delete If it's particularly relevant to one or two pages, put the code directly on those pages. No need for a templaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaate. ---Spintherism 02:39, 1 Nov 2005 (UTC)

We need to get rid of all these bloody quote templates, they just encourage people to be forumlaic. That Ballmer thing wasn't even funny the first time I saw it, by the 100th time it hadn't got any funnier. --Carlos the Mean 03:53, 9 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Ok, well, I'm nominating my own image for deletion so this should get done with pretty quickly. The image was used for The Uncyclopedia drinking game, but it has now been replaced by Image:Hand.jpg. So the image is orphaned and unecessary, burn it. --neoEva88 17:26, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Cursed Page Series

This page was deleted without a proper vote which is not policy for pages which have had so many edits. So I restored it and put it here. --PaulgbTalk 01:35, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Against deletion - I think this (Uncyclopedia:Curse) is a decent article as long as you can keep it to one page. --PaulgbTalk 01:35, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Poor attempt at cashing off of "The Ring". It's ugly, and stupid tot he point of unfunny. I have given the user a chance to make it presentable and he has invariably failed. Mediocre idea, executed very poorly. Can it. --Sir FlammableKUN 01:38, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Keep it please The joke requires the use of two pages. But that is it. One page is cursed, the other is not and is a warning. The warning is Uncyclopedia:Curse. Oh, and there's the template Template:CursedUser but if you like, that one can be deleted and removed from the legend. ... I thought it would be kinda fun though ... to have a sort of group of cursed people you know? --Nerd42 01:38, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I think the actual cursed page is unneccisary. It makes the legend less mysterious for the page to actually exists. I am against having more than one page for this idea. --PaulgbTalk 01:42, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)

oh, and if this series does get deleted, please give me time to copy all the code and images of the latest version so I can host it on my own wiki when/if I start one. --Nerd42 01:40, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Delete The legend is based on the actions of an alleged "corrupt admin". There's no such thing. (Reasonable people that we are, if anybody feels they have any evidence to the contrary, we'd be happy to discuss it with you here) --Spintherism 03:32, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I did not add the corrupt admin bit. Since, may I remind you, this is a wiki, you can edit that bit out. Come to think of it, maybe corrupt admins do exist, the way everything's getting burned instead of edited around here. Why not lock down the entire site? --Nerd42 13:28, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I think perhaps the first article could be deleted. I think the last one about the cursed article should stay, though it begs for a major overhaul. I think we should keep the user template no matter what. --neoEva88 19:43, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)

You know what? I've changed my mind. Go ahead. Delete the crap out of it. I'll just move it to another wiki. I've been working on setting up one today ... --Nerd42 20:20, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)

keep and some one replace the template it makes the joke fun... cmon folks lets have some fun. --Illogicalbeats

Nothing on this page but a template. (Which adds no humor so it hardly counts as content.) The creator hasn't done anything to it for a month. I say we give him some time to react to the VFD tag, and if he doesn't do anything, burn it. --neoEva88 19:26, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Comment I suppose you could always move it to a template for German Chancellors. MadMax 21:17, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I beleive I have remedied the situation. Rangeley 21:20, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Rangeley, it looks excellent and the matter has been dealt with. --neoEva88 22:10, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Keep and Rewrite I think there is a slight possibility of this article becoming funny if it is developed and somehow ceases to be fish poo. The main trouble with it is that it's true --Nerd42 22:08, 1 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't quite sure what to do with these... They look like they took a fair while to write, and they really aren't all that funny. Besides, they're vanity pages, right? And Vanity pages are bad, I think... --Malleus 12:04, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Maybe find who the authors are and move them to the author pages?--Distinction 15:55, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)

All three pages were created and modified by the same group of anonymous IP addresses, with no usernames to be found. I bet it's a copy and paste job from their LiveJournals. I'm going to take advantage of your largesse and use my Godlike admin powers to finish them off. Color them red for gone (and spank me if I've been a bad boy (oh yes, yes, please)). -- SirBobBobBob!S? [rox!|sux!] 22:53, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)

One of the angel/angle pun pages. Isn't especially funny though. I suggest that the image be deleted too since a similiar picture could be produced using the </math> tag. --neoEva88 01:16, 28 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I'm almost sure this was pasted off someone's lame blog: "A fallacy perpetrated upon the American citizenry in a thinly veiled attempt to establish a theocracy based upon a narrowly defined and warped fundamentalist ideology. Primary tactics include fear and hate mongering while espousing self righteousness and piety." That is all that is in this article. It sux. It's not funny. Nuke it!!! Nerd42 19:46, 22 Oct 2005 (UTC)